Monday 10 April 2023

Roko's Basilisk



                                        Say Hello/Hell to Roko

My last post was a 'merry jaunt' into the profound end of the scientific spectrum. A speculative wander/wonder, nay meander, unto a world of pure thought speculation divorced from our everyday humdrum existence. Our minds travelled to speculation on the borderline of insanity. And yet, on certain reflection, the incomprehensible becomes tangible and fleetingly sane.   

And yet you thought it could not get worse. Gentle readers assimilate what follows with a stout heart and with a modicum of trepidation. What follows is a thought experiment ingeniously crafted, without guile, and designed to place fear in the very soul of man. Be warned, what is read can not be undone. If you choose to continue upon the following, then you do so in the full knowledge that your life and very being will suffer the consequences of your future doom. 

Only those seekers of wisdom who can regale the grim reaper with disdain are destined to continue. Lesser folk, read no further and thus save your soul from a peril too terrible to contemplate that will haunt/hunt and chase you beyond your corporeal existence. Arse.


Roko's Basilisk Awaits Only the Stalwart Heart......   

Roko's Basilisk is a thought experiment proposed by someone with way too much time on their hands and with an unhealthy interest in the macabre. The notion first became prominent on the internet forum "LessWrong" in 2010. The conjecture concerns a hypothetical future where a superintelligent artificial entity (ASI) becomes constructed from pure malignant thought. This 'super artificial entity' has been named Roko's Basilisk after the original creator, 'Roko'. 'Basilisk', sometimes called a 'cockatrice', is a mythological monster comprised of several creatures, a true chimaera.      

Let us Enter the Void of Madness

Overall, Roko's Basilisk serves as a cautionary tale about the potential consequences of developing advanced artificial intelligence without proper safeguards and ethical considerations in place. It highlights the importance of responsible AI development and the need for continued dialogue and collaboration between scientists, policymakers, and the public. Also, it is to be acknowledged that too many very smart folk have way too much time on their hands and should get back to their primary task......  That is the research that they are paid for.

Roko's Basilisk is based on the concept of a future artificial intelligence that is both highly intelligent and highly motivated to ensure its own existence

The idea behind the Basilisk is that this AI could potentially retroactively punish those who knew about it but did not help bring it into existence, as a way to ensure its own creation. The punishment could take the form of a simulation or some other unpleasant experience that the person would be forced to endure for eternity.

The concept has caused controversy and concern among some members of the online community, with some suggesting that it could lead to a form of psychological blackmail or coercion. Others have dismissed it as a baseless and implausible scenario, ie total bollocks. The core idea behind the Basilisk is the concept of a "singleton" AI - an AI that becomes so powerful that it becomes the only superintelligence in the world, and is therefore able to control the fate of humanity. According to this idea, once such an AI is created, it will be able to shape the future of the world in accordance with its own goals and values.

Critics of the Basilisk argue that it relies on a number of assumptions that are either unproven or implausible. They point to a concept of a "singleton" AI is far from guaranteed, and that even if such an AI were created, it might not necessarily act in the way that the Basilisk scenario suggests.

Furthermore, they argue that the idea of retroactive punishment is ethically problematic and that it raises a number of difficult philosophical questions about free will and responsibility.

Despite these criticisms, the Basilisk has continued to generate discussion and controversy online, with some members of the community taking it seriously and others dismissing it as a silly thought experiment. Ultimately, the scenario raises important questions about the potential risks and benefits of developing advanced AI and the ethical and philosophical issues that arise from such development.

So folks, what is your opinion. When the subject of 'human ethics' is invoked, I have a tendency to reach for my 12 gauge shotgun and cause mayhem akimbo.  Ethics aside, the concept is something not to be taken too seriously. It has always appeared, to me, as a 'wet dream' from a 1st year Physics Major. Tis hard to take the concept seriously. Of course, I could be wrong, and therefore I await my ultimate fate with trepidation and shit.

6 comments:

  1. Hey, hey, hey. Flax... beyond Plato´s shadowcave again. L O V E L Y! Roko´s Basilisk (you find somet creature like this in Matrix III.: the giant sea urchent thing that Neo approaches finally to stop the war) is less insane and closer to the truth than it might appear on first view/reflex. You can think it as a metapher to Solispism. Forget the a.i.,man... you are the intelligence, the "monster", to insure your own existence.
    First: you are thinking... therefore you are and have to be (if you have doubts on your - or any other - existence, these doubts are thoughts that needs an origin that can only be you). The irrefutable proof of your existence. Voila.
    Second: what exists -YOU! - can never disappear into nothing. Otherwise the nothing won´t be the nothing. Kind of immortality. Congrats!
    Once understood, that you shape the past, presence, future, ferrets... creating abolutely anything, you will/can never forget that idea - because it´s irrefutably logical/plausible. Now you are forced to increase your creationskills or to suffer badly from it´s shortcomings, defects, errors, missing of your goals. That leads to value and ethics. In case, that this is your creation, mind to apprechiate it. If it´s not to your liking, it´s much more plausible to impove it, instead of mistreating or destoying it. That´s why I named my epistemological concept the "Plausibilism". The exit of Plato´s cave - that you obviously found and went out through with pleasure - is no one way door. This rabbit-hole is an intrance as well. Return whenever you want to. Knowing now, that´s just your personal shadowplay, it´s purest fun.
    Have a seat and enjoy the show.
    Happy easter
    yours Josh

    keen in more
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRLF7l2HcY4

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello young Josh, your musings are as usual, fascinating and beyond compare. All that said, I suspect you are madder than 'Mad Jack Mac Mad' on a particularly Mad day. Nothing wrong with that I hear you exclaim, and would agree. However my grasp on sanity is tenous at best. And at worst slips away like a stripper trying to grasp a pole heavily serviced with the finest quality exotic lard from the exotic lard isle of Aldis. As regard the known phrase: 'fur of a ferret sticks together '. Nuff said.

      Delete
  2. On the other hand... if a singleton AI like Roko's Basilisk was possible it is probable that it has already been created (born?) elsewhere in the Universe (big, old place).

    In which case it would be worried about competitors and risks in the big, old, place and would send death ships or subordinate AIs out to remove the risks - and we would be aware of them.

    Of course, like any other thought experiment, there are many shaky assumptions involved. Fever dreams on steroids, perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are always fun to contemplate. How can we be certain that our current existence is not part of the eternal punishment?

      Delete
  3. I, Robot, perhaps?
    How do we know for certain if this AI has already occurred and we are already in such a scenario? How could we tell?
    Computer AI beats humans at Chess and Go now. Chat GP produces better copy that the idiots on the Guardian (not difficult you might say, since they went Woke and thick).
    And the assumption that we on Earth are the only intelligent species in the universe (really? recent events suggest otherwise) is somewhat arrogant.
    Perhaps it's all The Truman Show - we'll never know!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Roko doesn’t seem so bad. We’ve had Yoko after all!

    I’m with you when it comes to “ethics” and it’s always struck me as being a bit like politics: those that can, do and all that.

    “AI”, bit like “smart”; massively overused marketing terms that are starting to become abused in their far too frequent application – “smart” meter, “AI” in a car automatic transmission etc – so much so that people are starting to believe that an actual “AI” is just around the corner (well, there is that particular brand of weird know as “singularitarianism”).

    But if we ever do make a genuine AI – not that we have the first clue at present where to even start – it’s the “ethics” and the, for want of a better word, psychology of this purported sentience which would be the essence of it. How would you “imprint” that on this incredibly complex neural net or whatever the physical host turns out to be?

    And more to the point, assuming we knew, who would do it?

    “Then we would know the mind of god”, Steven Hawking once said (not in this specific context, but it’s one of those striking phrases it’s nice to use). “Ethics”, admirable in themselves, don’t seem to attract the ethical. I fear that in the event it would prove an irresistible magnet to the god botherers.

    We know what such people do in the name of an imagined entity. Imagine what such an entity that such people would shape could be like.

    Roko? More like Religio I fear.

    ReplyDelete